[You'll notice from a few posts ago, that Brett and I added an additional author to our blog. I want to welcome Stephen Hilgendorf, my good friend, colleague, and personal hero to our blogging group. He comes with a wealth of knowledge and a unique perspective that we'll all benefit from immensely. I have known few men in my life more worthy of admiration than Stephen. I am thankful for his role in my life and grateful for an opportunity for him to continue being an active part of it. Thanks for joining us, Stephen.]
I am about ready to write the most "disagreeable" and "confrontational" post thus far on the blog, but it is something I feel fairly strongly about. As always, I claim no expertise or authority in the matter. I merely present my reflections and look for them to be refined by my reading peers. Hopefully I won't appear too much in left field with this post. If so, I promise to return to safer ground soon.
Anybody following American news these days, knows that the Americans are in a time of political excitement. Everything is buzzing with the primary season, wherein the nation picks the candidate to run against Obama in the upcoming presidential race. Amidst all the debates and politicking of the republicans vying for the coveted honor of running against Obama, one issue has consistently came to the fore--WAR. As many know, America has been actively involved in several (largely unpopular) wars in recent years. As such, the issue is very important to voters. This is especially true given the fact that three of the four possible Republican nominess will not only continue current military actions, but see potentially more on the horizon.
Now, I do not claim to be an expert on war or the political situations which either do or do not necessitate it. I do not wish to comment on this (and would ask that anybody reading this post not turn this into a political debate about those points). What interests me more is the tendency of the Christian community in America to loudly proclaim that war is "never" the solution. Now, please understand that I am not a war-monger and certainly do not wish to see wars waged and perpetuated. To say that war is "never" the solution, however, is simply not true. Both the wealth of tradition within our Judeo-Christian heritage and Biblical teaching in general support the fact that SOME wars are JUST and OUGHT be waged in the face of greater injustice. As a Christian community, I feel we should be more precise with our rhetoric. We may not like war. We may not want more war. We may think that current wars are being waged for unjust or insincere motives. This does not, however, make all war inherently unjust (excepting, of course, that war is an outcome of the Fall) nor lacking in purpose. As Christians, I feel we should know that some wars in the past were seen as very "just" and some wars in the future may be "just" as well--war is....sometimes....the answer. This is a controversial opinion to have, but it is also one in keeping with Christian tradition and orthodoxy. As this blog hopes to uphold these lessons, I feel I am not amiss to make it.
Many theologians throughout history have weighed in on the touchy issue of war--men like Aquinas, Augustine, and Erasmus. Together, they have helped formulate what we call "Just War Theory." Just War Theory's primary goal is to reconcile a God who clearly wants justice in the world to reign supreme and has used violent methods to obtain this end. Just War theorists have sought to understand a God who calls for love and yet encourages the Hebrew nation, for example, to wage war. Clearly, they thought, there must be criteria which, in God's eyes, warrants war on this earth. Having met these criteria, Christians could--in good conscience--take up arms. To go into great depth on the nuances of the various tenets of Just War Theory would take some time and not be particularly effective (as we all would get lost in the theological jargon). In light of this, I want not to turn to these theorists, but to the Bible--the source of all truth.
Biblically, I feel there are AT LEAST three limitations (there may be more--as I said, I am not an expert) God has placed around war to help keep it within "just" bounds. N.B. Please take the time to read the Biblical passages I provide should you be interested. Also note that I am indebted a sermon I heard long ago on this topic. Unfortunately, the pastor, church, and title elude me.
1.) First, those waging war ought not enjoy killing/making war. In the Psalms we are taught not to love war or take any enjoyment from waging it. You see waging war is like rolling a snowball down a hill. As it descends, it gains size and momentum. By the bottom of the hill it is nearly impossible to stop. Wars can be the same. Justifying one war for poor reasons makes the next war easier to justify for the same and so on and so on. Such a tendency show a love for war instead of a natural aversion to and revulsion with it. The minute we start to love, seek, desire, or not fear war, we have entered dangerous territory. As Christians, war should be the last resort in our minds. As I said above, war is sometimes the answer. But in order to keep ourselves honest, it should always be the last answer. So be wary of any who talk of war as if it is an easy things. Be wary of those who do not talk about it with somber hearts and minds. War is grave business and they have calloused themselves and learned to "love" that which no man ought. Such a person could never wage a "just" war because they ignore the magnitude of taking life. Here are just a few verses that support this idea: Psalm 11:5, 68:30, 120:6, 140:1-2.
2.) If a nation is to war they ought to war in a just manner. This gets at some of the work of the theologians I mentioned above. If we boil down their teachings, three simple tenets stick out to me. To wage a war in a just manner, first one must have a just cause/reason for going to war (psalm 72 and 82 address this quite well). Second, one must go about waging war in just ways (see Deuteronomy 20 which literally starts "When you go to war..."). Finally, going about war in a just manner requires just terms and conditions for peace (the Bible is rife with examples of kings ending wars in just manners--see the book of II Chronicles as a whole).
3.) The third limitation on war is the truth that ONE DAY war will never be the answer--all wars will end. People waging just wars look forward to the day when all wars will end, when all will be at peace, when God will reign supreme. Anybody waging a just war must keep this in mind. Ultimately, Jesus will come to restore the world to its perfect state--when war will no longer be necessary at all. To forget that wars will end one day is definitely an example of missing the forest for the trees.
Now, I know that what I just wrote is extremely controversial. Please remember what I am not saying, however. I am not saying that current wars being waged are "just" in a Biblical sense. I am not saying war-mongering and seeking new war is a good idea (in fact I think it is deplorable). I am not saying war should be a first option or a preferred option. I am not even saying that ANY WAR in the history of man has been "just" necessarily (although I personally believe that many wars have been just and anybody living through WWII would probably agree with me...at least among those to whom I have spoken). What I am saying, is that according to the Bible and according to tradition, Christians ought not loudly proclaim as they do that there is never a cause for war. Indeed, if you believe war is never the answer as an American, you ought to despise the American Revolution which, as a point of national pride, we describe as just (although I do not believe it just for other reasons). If war was the "right" answer then, let's be consistent and not openly decry the evils of war in any and all circumstances forever and ever, amen. I just don't see support for this anywhere in Scripture. I would encourage us to be careful with our rhetoric and realize that the God of the Universe hates injustice far more than he (appears) to hate war. In the end, there is a time for all things under heaven--a time for peace and a time for war (Ecclesiastes 3:8). When we do war, however, and war we shall, I pray it will be a just war waged in light of the Biblical limitations outlined above. I will never support a war waged under any other auspices than those.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
P.S. Yes, I know there are also many christian traditions that believe in a strong pacifist doctrine (most notably those coming from the Anabaptist tradition). I am not ignoring these when I say that the overwhelming amount of tradition in the church supports a sort of "just war" theory. I do believe, however, that proponents of just war are more representative of the church as a whole and tradition in general. Also, having read many pacifist works of theology, I believe the emphasis there is not necessarily on there being no such thing as a "just war," but about not participating in that war if it were to occur. So it is more about a personal walk of faith than a sweeping generality about the nature of war. I figured I would bring this up before any of my Anabaptist/Mennonite friends grill me.
What are your thoughts on the teachings of the Holy Fathers prior to Constantine? The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that the Fathers were quite against not only war but also Christians serving under arms. St. Hippolytus of Rome goes so far as to forbid the baptizing of magistrates who would not put off the purple and soldiers who would not lay down their arms. Tertullian in "De Corona" is quite adamantly opposed to service under arms, as is Justin Martyr. Oddly enough, even Nicea I in Canon 12 assigns penance for those "called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations)...."
ReplyDeleteYes, Stephen. I am aware of those teachings as well. I do not find them troublesome toward my original claim, however. Much like my thoughts on the pacifist traditions of the Anabaptists and the like, I feel the primary emphasis of these men is the push against Christians serving under arms more than any claim that there is no such thing as a "just" war. That is, after all, the nuance of my argument. I merely want to raise the point that to say otherwise is to seemingly betray vast portions of scripture (the teachings of the Holy Fathers prior to the Holy Father pior to Constantine) supporting the idea of a "just" war.
ReplyDeleteBut the feelings of the writers you mention are also well supported in scripture. There are many times in the Proverbs, Psalms, and the Histories where men are lauded for hanging up their sword, preferring peace, and not going to war. BUT this is synonymous with my first "limitation" described above. God does (or at least many of the Psalmists do) not seem to want men to "love" war or to "prefer" in any form. So it makes sense that those who are able to avoid, actively not seeking it, are praised for wisdom, integrity, etc. The authors you cite above (excepting St. Hippolytus) seem very much in keeping with this tradition. This, again, is not a negation of my central point, but a confirmation of one of the limitations I see placed on "just" war by the Bible (the fact that we cannot love it). Being against going to war and picking up arms is not necessarily a claim that there is never a time in which it is "just" to do so.
That's my 7:30 am answer to your question. Thoughts?
I think you have a good point in that there is an acknowledgement that war happens. My concern as a churchman is that if the Church were to adopt a 'just' war theory, it would be counter-productive and entirely inconsistent with the apostolic witness and mission of the Church. While we may acknowledge that war happens, the Church should not create a category that makes war acceptable. Instead the Church must call sin by its proper name. A more fruitful and Gospel oriented question to ask might be how we engage in ministry in spite of war, and deal with the consequences of war in the lives of the Faithful and perfidious alike. Ultimately the Church is not called to validate the actions of a king or republic, or to participate in its agenda. We're called to follow the example of Christ, the Apostles, and the Martyrs, not the pseudo-saint Constantine.
ReplyDeleteI make more than an argument that there is an acknowledgement that war happens. I am actually directly saying that the Church should be ready and willing to condone a "just" war waged via Biblical principles.
ReplyDeleteA.) The Church has adopted a just war theory already. It is only relatively "minor" sects that have not.
B.) Countless medieval theologians would stridently disagree with your claim that "just" war theory (indeed that war in general) is "inconsistent with the apostolic witness and mission of the Church." Indeed, there is a whole wave of historical thought now re-examining the complex relationship upheld by the Medieval Church (stretching into the Reformation) between crusading and missionizing. To cite but one example, I point you in the direction of the beatified Dr. Ramon Llull, who not only actively called for renewed crusades into the Holy Land, but also died in Northern Africa as a non-militant missionary to the Muslims. His rhetoric evinces no discrepancy between just warfar and the "apostolic witness and mission of the Church." (This is not to say, however, that the Crusades were "just," that is for God to decide. I merely stress that not only ivory-towered theologians but also active grass-roots evangelists saw no inherent disparity between just wars and the role of the Church. Many theologians (especially medieval ones) did not ask how to engage in ministry in spite of war, but how to engage in ministry WITH war (this sounds absurd, but only in a world where there is no such thing as a "just" war). These views continued well into the Reformation period and in ecclesiastical political theory of the Early-modern. So tradition overwhelmingly does not raise the two as incompatible (as far as I can tell...I, of course, always leave room for correction). They may very well be incompatible and these men were wrong. Perhaps even they never truly found a "just" cause for war. (I still will not say, however, that there are no just causes for war based on my original post).
(continued in next reply...)
C.) I also think your claim that the Church "should not make a category that makes war acceptable" but call "sin by its proper name" should be more nuanced. You say this is "ultimately" because "the Church is not called to validate the actions of a king or republic, or to participate in its agenda." On the contrary, I think it is VERY MUCH in keeping with the role of the Church to judge the affairs of men. The Church does not wage war, political entities do (as you rightly say). But this radical separation of Church and State that you espouse doesn't hold water in light of Biblical or traditional precedent. [To be fair, perhaps I do not understand what you mean specifically by "validate" and "participate"]. God called out prophets many times in Israel's storied history to validate and rebuke the affairs of State (I need not point to specific examples, as the OT is just rife with them). Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes all evince a wealth of material to help a ruler achieve "justice." Bishop Ambrose excommunicated Theodosius I for his inglorious and unjust massacres. Calvin established a government intimately tied to the affairs of Church and salvation. Luther called on Princes to support just causes. Erasmus openly criticized both King and Pope for injustices committed politically. I think the Church is very much in the business of validating the actions of government. Perhaps not "participating" (in that Chruches, for example, do not go to war), but certainly it is for the Church to help guide the affairs of men in communion with the Spirit, in light of Scripture, and in accordance with the Holy, Catholic faith. Following the example of "Christ, the Apostles, and the Martyrs" as you say involves decrying hypocrisy and injustice and supporting those circumstances that redeem the world.
DeleteD.) This takes me back to my central point then. If there is such a thing as a "just war" (which I think the Bible and tradition prove quite well), then it is the Churches duty to uphold that standard, denounce those who do not meet it, and bless those that do. This is not vindication of sin, but vindication of the necessity for wholly fallen people to use wholly fallen means to achieve still fallen ends. Nobody has or will say that war is "good." But, assuming it can be "just," than it can be done in keeping with God's will. It is the Church's job to validate or denounce accordingly (much like the prophets of old, Ambrose, etc, etc).
That's a 2:20 am response to your question and I hope it makes sense. I tried breaking it in parts to make it flow. Again, I merely am stating a belief that the Bible gives circumstances in which war is "just" and means by which it can be waged "justly." As such, the Church can uphold those standards of "justice" like we do with any other aspect of life.
Did I misunderstand your argument, Stephen?
Can we make a case for a just war complete with limitations, standards and all manner of rules? It is possible and has been done as you have exhaustively pointed out. I question the wisdom of such an undertaking. I think it is better for the Church simply to condemn war as sin (which it is), call all flesh to repentance, and announce forgiveness to the penitents. To go beyond that compromises the Gospel. It's far more important in my mind to address how we restore penitent sinners to communion. That's the thrust of my position. I recognize I'm swimming against the tide on this one (especially as an Anglican), but I think it's important to keep in mind that the Gospel is primary, not being cozy with the State.
ReplyDeleteI hope that clarifies things.
First, no advocate of just war theory (to my knowledge) has ever deemed a warfare as "good" or without "sin." So the Church has already done this, as you say.
ReplyDeleteSecond, it is certainly not about being cozy with the State regardless of whether a just war exists or not. Again, pointing to Ambrose and the prophets etc., none of them would claim their views made them cozy with the State. Indeed, it has costed several their lives to call-out, clarify, and validate the affairs of State. So coziness has little to do with it.
Moreover, I still don't see the rationale for your belief that the Church upholding a theory of Just War "compromises the Gospel" or makes the Gospel any less "primary." This was, as it were, the crux of my last reply to which I don't think you have responded with yours. Again, like in my last post, many have seen them as compatible and not detracting from each other. I too see them as compatible. Event personally, holding a theory of just war has in now way taken away from the preeminence of the gospel in my life and ministry. So until I can see where the are incompatible, I can say from personal experience, Christian tradition, and Biblical precedent that they don't appear to be.
Perhaps this is because I don't quite see the gospel in the abstract manner which you seem to convey (although perhaps this is a whole different blog post in and of itself). I see the gospel as very much playing out in real life and entering into all aspects of life. Why? Because God sacramentally redeems and restores all things due to the truth of the Gospel. The good news brings everything back into alignment with him, not just our personal penitence. So all things--how we manage our money, wage just war, feed the neighbor down the street, care for world around us, evangelize, instruct, build homes, etc. are fair ground for the Church to consider (with significant Biblical precedent to do so). So to uphold a doctrine of Just War does not detract from the Gospel, in my view but helps us broken vessels refine and clarify our roles on this earth with regard to that Gospel.
To use a more intimate matter--abortion--as a comparison. Many in the Church have, do, and ought to continue making a strong stance in favor of life. We have spent countless intellectual hours debating, refining, defining, and articulating views that evince the sanctity of life starting at conception. Why? Because it is a matter of the Gospel, of redeeming a fallen world, stemming back the tide of sin, and preserving the saints. Is it a direct matter of the Gospel though? Not necessarily. We can't save those unborn children, include them among the penitent (in fact, we can't even baptize them). Yet the Church actively decries injustice, reprimands the State for allowing it, and encourages national repentance--this, I trust, you and I would say is a good thing. It has not, however, taken the Gospel away from our eyes. We argue for justice because we know that it is related to the Gospel, the redemption of the world, and the salvation of souls. To have a postion on what constitutes life to carefully define what is just in this matter, to fight tooth and nail against the State to have our voice heard and justice done I do not think necessarily removes the Gospel from our minds
ReplyDeletePerhaps my comparison is a bit stretched (I admit that). But I merely am trying to show that the Gospel plays out in the real world. The same Gospel that tells people how to handle depression, utilize the money, defines "life" (very worldly, non-evangelical things) need not exclude defining a "just" war if such a thing exists. Perhaps you can say it keeps more of us Christians in books defining things (like just war) than out there in the world witnessing to people. Sure. Absolutely. But God's church has many aspects--some feet, some hands, some eyes, etc. And if we say that those with their mind in books and thinking about abstractions have made the Gospel less primary, we step on dangerous territory. It is wise to remind them, of course, to go and redeem the world in more tangible ways too.
I doubt too many are reading this exciting debate of ours, Stephen. Maybe we can continue it next time we talk in person. Unless you would like to continue on here :-).
Much love,
Chris
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI suppose we should continue the discussion in another venue. As I continue to meditate on the subject, I have a feeling I'm missing something.
ReplyDeletePardon my short replies. Time does not permit me to make lengthy posts I'm afraid.
Thank you for your kind patience and toleration.